American Politics Journal

Fundraising and Hand-Wringing
The press obsesses over the Lincoln Bedroom and telephone calls -- and don't get the point: the folly of micromanaging fundraising
by Jeff Koopersmith

Monday, March 3rd, 1997 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- As the media closes in on the White House, America couldn't be more bored.

You couldn't turn on the television Sunday morning without watching some pundit spewing pap, lashing out at the President for "selling the Lincoln Bedroom."

What surprises me is how weak the White House defense has been.

Terry McAuliffe, fundraiser extraordinaire, sounded a bit whiny as he defended the President and pretended Mr. Clinton did not wholeheartedly agree with White House coffees and sleepovers. Many blame Dick Morris for the mess because of his suggestion that the President must run a two-year-long campaign which, because of its immense cost, required the White House to raise tens of millions through "nefarious means."

Ridiculous.

Republicans are again seeking to embrace holier-than-thou pretense while doing the same things themselves.

I rarely come to Bill Clinton's defense, but the fact is that the lure of power has beckoned political big givers since the beginning of time.

Just as French and English monarchs entertained at their castles, every President of the United States has used the "awesomeness" of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to focus the power of the presidency. While it may be true that the Clintons used the White House far more than other presidents, the truth also remains that national political campaigns have never been more expensive.

What's also fact is that United States Senators and House members use the power of the Capitol building to pry money lose from political financiers. When Congress is in session one can spend consecutive days at the Capitol attending one caviar and champagne reception after another which, although they may not directly put money in the pockets of sponsoring members, do so indirectly. Invitations to visit House members and Senators in their public and private offices in the Capitol abound. And the best part are -- special tickets to "private" White House tours that are arranged by these same Senate and House critics as rewards to "deserving constituents."

In short, everyone in Washington that can, does use the White House as a display of their own personal power.

Rules that force Senators and house members to leave the Capitol and go to little phone booths in order to call supporters for campaign money are ridiculous. Purportedly these rules are in place to protect challengers from incumbent advantage. However, Congresspersons do not tell the people they're trying to pinch for big bucks that they're phoning from a cubbyhole at the RNC or DNC in order not to break the rules. The ruse is complete. Several Congresspersons have avoided this charade by using cell phones to make such calls. The same rule which forbids the use of public buildings for fundraising activity by Congress is the one now being invoked by the Republican Congress to hang Bill Clinton.

"He used the White House for (gasp!) fundraising!," they cry.

Yet they do the very same thing -- every day.

It seems to me that the rule forbidding political activity from within buildings, ostensibly owned by the people, cost the "people" too much. Imagine the work that doesn't get done because your Congress is in some hole whispering on the phone for money. But if you don't want to reward these buggers by letting them stay "in" while making and returning fundraising calls, then look at the real difference between Congress and the President:

The President LIVES in the White House.

As far as I know, only a few Congresspersons have lived in their offices in the Capitol.

Perhaps we should reward our Presidents -- Republican or Democrat -- with the right to entertain whoever they choose in their own homes -- subject, of course, to the scrutiny of the scandal-loving press.